JUDGMENT : Heard Ms. Shalini Kumari, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent-State and Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Vinoba Bhave University. 2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents to revise the salary/pension of the petitioner in consequent upon Time-Bound Promotion granted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission w.e.f. 28.11.1991. Further prayer made in the writ petition is to revise the pension and retiral benefits of the petitioner as per 5th pay revision and consequently as per 6th pay revision as the petitioner’s pension has been fixed at reduced rate. Further prayer for arrear of salary, pension and other retiral benefits are also made therein. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Philosophy at Katras College, Katrasgarh vide letter dated 30.08.1976 and the petitioner joined on that post on 01.09.1976. The service of the petitioner was confirmed by the Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna vide Notification dated 27.04.1984 wherein the claim of the petitioner stands at serial no.246 of the said notification. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Department of Human Resource Development, Government of Jharkhand in its provisional pay fixation in UGC scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996 has approved the substantive date of the joining of the petitioner as 28.11.1981 and approved the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500/-. She submits that the petitioner has been superannuated on 31.10.2004. The petitioner was promoted to the post of Reader w.e.f. 28.11.1991 as per the Time-Bound Promotion scheme. She further submits that the petitioner had represented before the competent authority. She further submits that without revising his salary in view of the time bound promotion, the pension has been fixed. She further submits that the petitioner is 75 years old and the matter needs to be taken care of. 5. Mrs. She further submits that the petitioner had represented before the competent authority. She further submits that without revising his salary in view of the time bound promotion, the pension has been fixed. She further submits that the petitioner is 75 years old and the matter needs to be taken care of. 5. Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, the learned counsel for the respondent Vinoba Bhave University by way of e-mail produced the letter dated 30.03.2019 and 04.01.2020 and submits that the University has already taken a decision and the claim of the petitioner has been forwarded to the respondent-State. She submits that as soon as the said approval is granted, the benefit will be released in favour of the petitioner. The said two letters are taken on record. 6. Mr. Jai Prakash, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State fairly submits that if the recommendation of the University is there, the State can take a decision in accordance with law and the matter can be disposed of. 7. In view of the above facts and considering that already there is recommendation for approval for the grievance of the petitioner to the State of Jharkhand, it is desirable that the State taking into consideration the age of the petitioner take an early decision so that the benefit may be received by the petitioner at the earliest. 8. In view of the above facts the present writ petition is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no.2 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the above observation particularly in view of the submission made by Mrs. I. Sen Choudhary, the learned counsel appearing for the University at bar with regard to the aforesaid two letters by which the approval has been sought for by the University. It is desirable taking into account the age of the petitioner that the respondent no.2 will take a decision in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. It goes without saying that if the approval is granted, it should be communicated to the University immediately so that the benefit may be made in favour of the petitioner at the earliest. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the with petition [W.P.(S) No.6367 of 2019] stands disposed of. 11. 9. It goes without saying that if the approval is granted, it should be communicated to the University immediately so that the benefit may be made in favour of the petitioner at the earliest. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the with petition [W.P.(S) No.6367 of 2019] stands disposed of. 11. I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.